ered, I read " that freedom of speech and de-
bate or preceedings in the Legislature ought
not to be impeached in any court of judica-
ture." I cannot understand why my friend
from Cecil, alter the elaborate speech of the
gentleman from Prince George's (Mr. Clarke)
yesterday, on questions of such vital import-
ance and moment to us, should attempt to
abridge those who may follow in his argu-
ment, and give to him a greater privilege
than that which is allowed to us. If it takes
a month for us to answer that, let us do it,
and do it well. if we have not the mental
ability in this Convention to answer such ar-
guments, if they were arguments, as were
adduced yesterday, let us then put our fingers
on our mouths and move to restrict debate,
because we are afraid to meet them. I have
no fear about the ability of the Convention
not only to meet, but utterly annihilate, the
doctrines which were yesterday espoused upon
this floor. Some of us may not perhaps be
able to come directly to points, and will have
to work our waiy there. It may be sixty
minutes perhaps before some of us can get
there. But I trust when we do get there it
will he with such a broads do as will sweep
it out of the hearing of this Convention or
the people of Maryland. I want, under this
very section which we have adopted, the
greatest laltitude given to debate, as to time
and gentlemanly expression, upon the floor
of this Convention. I shall, therefore, ce-
tainly vote against both the amendment and
the order.
Mr. SCOTT. I had no idea when I intro-
duced this order that it would lead to so
much debate, or I should certainly not have
offered it. But since it is before us, and we
must dispose of it the best way we can, and
as I was the author of the order, perhaps it
is due to me and the Convention that I should
say something in explanation of it. And
first, in respect to the gentleman from Som-
erset (Mr. Dennis), who begged the Conven-
tion to consider that we were composed of
mortals. It was in consideration of that fact
that I introduced the order; the fact that we
are mortals, and that. mortal endurance has a
limit. If ninety-six men have to speak
without limit, where is the endurance that
can sustain it?
The gentleman from Baltimore county (Mr.
Berry) is for freedom of speech, and refers to
the article of the bill of rights that the lib-
erty of speech shall not be abridged. Then are
we to speak eternally; every man as long as
he pleases? Is that the construction? I am
glad to find in that gentleman a champion
that can annihilate at a blow all the argu-
ments offered yesterday. But if the gentle-
man can annihilate them at all, he can do it
in an hour. If he is an hour in geting to it,
he will never get too it. He takes ft great deal of
credit to himself and his friends' mental abil-
ity to meet the opposition. I am glad of that |
too. But I want to know whether our physi-
cal ability will hold out. A man may have
boundless intellectual ability, and yet his
physical ability may fail. It is because we
are mortals, with limited physical ability,
and because I want, and I suppose the rest of
us do, to survive these labors and get home,
that I offered the order,
Mr. DENNIS. As to the physical ability of the
gentleman he can judge of that for himself. He
may have felt hungry, or he may have felt
thirsty. I do not know his motives. Of
course the gentleman will not understand me
as meaning anything offensive to him. As to
his physical abilities or disabilities he is the
best judge of them himself. But as to
mental abilities, I will say in reply to the
gentleman from Baltimore county (Mr. Berry)
that if be staggers under the blow of yester-
day, it is only a skirmish, it is but the be-
ginning of the battle. If be staggers under
that, let him remember the captain of the old
ship in action. When every mast was shot
away, and the sails were trailing over the
sides, he was called upon to surrender, but
replied, "We have only begun the fight."
Mr. SCOTT. I think my motives have been
misconceived, It was not out of regard to
members of this body who have been so fav-
orably situated as to be listeners, that I of-
fered the order, but out of humane regard
to those gentlemen who are obliged for three
hours in succession to entertain this body.
Mr. CLARKE. I assure the gentleman that
I have not suffered at all,
Mr. NEGLEY. I am in favor of the amend-
ment of the order; and if that cannot be
added, I am in favor of the older as offered.
It has been said that this is an invasion of the
liberty of speech. Does liberty mean un-
bridled license? The Chair has announced
this morning that no man is allowed to in-
dulge in personal reflection. Our liberty of
speech is always to be controlled and exer-
cisd in such a way as not to interfere with a
like liberty on the part of our neighbors. This
is no abridgement of the liberty of speech.
It is a limitation upon the time, and not upon
the freedom of speaking,
What will be the result if the order is not
adopted? A few gentlemen will rise and
speak ad libitum, and their harangues will go
on the record. The physical endurance of
the Convention will become so worn out and
exhausted, that some one will rise and move
the previous question, and all dehate will be
stopped. All the discuss on come suddenly
to a premature close It is for the purpose of
fair play, to give an equal chance to both sides,
that I desire the adoption of this rule, or some
similar rule. I am in favor of the amendment,
because it gives equality of liberty to both
sides. It ought nut to he objected by the
minority that we should not curtail their
right of debating the question, because one
of their members has already had the privi- |
